Obviously DNA manipulation is part of science, but DNA manipulation alone shows nothing but that DNA can be manipulated, which was not what I meant really. It does not imply creationism at all. Creationism says there is a divine (I think it is more than just supernatural here, but if you prefer that terminology we can use it) being that has created the diversity we see today (at least, that is what I assume people are upset about not being taught in schools), as opposed to natural processes like natural selection, mutation, genetic drift...

We can test these natural processes in a variety of ways and see the influence they have on populations and in turn on speciation. How do we test that it was a "divine" power that was manipulating life?

As to the rest of your post, I may not have the same definition of supernatural as you. My definition is something "beyond" the natural world, outside of it in a way that is not just our ability to perceive reality being limited. Now, if that is what you meant, that is purely your opinion and I disagree that we are seen as supernatural beings by other species. However, if you meant something that is "on a higher plane of existence," I am not convinced that is what other animals would think of us at all and I am not convinced that is true of humans (being on a higher plane of existence or what not). There is no evidence for animals 'feeling' that ways and the very fact that we had to claw and fight our way to the top through subjugation, conditioning, and exploitation suggests that is not the case to me but I've never really thought about it that much.

Getting a bit off topic here, but, in the end I do think that if there is "something supernatural" that exists it is because right now "we" are not able to process it's existence. I don't deny the possibility such things exist but I see no proof they are responsible for diversity of life etc. Since I can, and have, tested many of these natural processes and have quite a bit about them that is why I accept them as the primary origin of diversity on earth.

Obviously DNA manipulation is part of science, but DNA manipulation alone shows nothing but that DNA can be manipulated, which was not what I meant really. It does not imply creationism at all. Creationism says there is a divine (I think it is more than just supernatural here, but if you prefer that terminology we can use it) being that has created the diversity we see today (at least, that is what I assume people are upset about not being taught in schools), as opposed to natural processes like natural selection, mutation, genetic drift...

We can test these natural processes in a variety of ways and see the influence they have on populations and in turn on speciation. How do we test that it was a "divine" power that was manipulating life?

As to the rest of your post, I may not have the same definition of supernatural as you. My definition is something "beyond" the natural world, outside of it in a way that is not just our ability to perceive reality being limited. Now, if that is what you meant, that is purely your opinion and I disagree that we are seen as supernatural beings by other species. However, if you meant something that is "on a higher plane of existence," I am not convinced that is what other animals would think of us at all and I am not convinced that is true of humans (being on a higher plane of existence or what not). There is no evidence for animals 'feeling' that ways and the very fact that we had to claw and fight our way to the top through subjugation, conditioning, and exploitation suggests that is not the case to me but I've never really thought about it that much.

Getting a bit off topic here, but, in the end I do think that if there is "something supernatural" that exists it is because right now "we" are not able to process it's existence. I don't deny the possibility such things exist but I see no proof they are responsible for diversity of life etc. Since I can, and have, tested many of these natural processes and have quite a bit about them that is why I accept them as the primary origin of diversity on earth.

I guess it just comes down to my own personal interpretation of the verbiage used in the definition of creationism. Wikipedia's interpretation of this notion did specifically mention the word "supernatural," which is where i got that from. I do know the commonly perceived translation of creationism is usually regarding a "divine" entity though, with more of a religious undertone...i'm assuming thats more where youre coming from. To me, i would define creationism as "the creation of conscious life." Done. I try not to focus too much on who or what exactly is doing this, versus the act itself. Under this pretense, i believe both creationism and natural mutation processes are both relevent to the creation and progression of life.

Well, you cant really test that a divine power created us...but i'm not even necessarily talking about that. When I reference creationism its in regard to a very bare-bones definition of the word. I guess that could be a fault on my part...does creationism usually only pertain to the creation of humankind? Now, I do believe we are what we are today as a species due to the help of an advanced race...what some people ages ago may have cassified as "divine"...but theres no way for me to definitively prove that, so i wont even go there haha.

Supernatural as being on a higher plane of existance is exactly what i mean, you are correct. I agree that animals probably do not have the ability to recognize us as a more advanced race...i was more or less trying to imply that if they could, they probably would. I was speaking more towards the fact itself that we are on a higher plane of existance to plant and animal life...not so much on their ability to actually recognize and comprehend this. Hell, most life on this planet probably has no idea to our existance in the first place...or at least the full extent of it...and it's this notion that i use to try to draw parallels with. Being that this is the case for most if not all life, who says the same wouldnt go for us? This is a very difficult avenue to explore though. I'll use a bat again for example...let's say that we have a perception of reality that is akin to a bat, paralleled but on a higher level. All bats know is darkness 24/7. There is a whole world around them that they are interacting with to a limited degree, but they have absolutely no idea to the extent of the actuality that is around them. How would you even get started in solving that problem if faced with similiar conditions? I do think there are manners in which to utilize tapping into these higher realms of conscious reality, but its through methods that status-quo science and the establishment do not give the time of day, and actually demonize. It is these reality-limiting circumstances though that I feel like we as humankind are dealing with...just as is with the rest of nature...we're just a few notches higher on the ladder. And i dont think that any entity that exists on a higher dimensional vibration is necessarily to be considered "divine." Personally, I dislike the idea of worshipping anyone and/or holding them in some [divine] higher regard, while inferiorizing yourself at the same time.

There's my 2 cents though, make of it what you will...i know im a weirdo

I understand where you're coming from, but most people when they say they want creationism to be taught in school, or given "equal time" to evolution, they don't just mean referencing that a super natural being started it all, or maybe played some role, they are looking for more than that. This is not the same as "creation of conscious life," though I would argue basically all life has the ability to respond to it's environment, just at varying degrees, so you would want to be more specific there as to what is conscious. It comes down to things like common descent - "is man related to monkey!?!?" kinda stuff, speciation, the idea of if mutation is sufficient to create variation in the species we see on earth or if a supernatural force is responsible for creating it - not really talking about humans specifically but ALL life on earth. For instance, one Creationist claim for why you see so much diversity on earth is that God created a bunch of "Kinds," or proto-animals that had rough shapes which then diverged into the various forms we see today. There are a lot of problems with this theory, ranging from loss of traits to reversals to intermediates in the fossil record (Devil sent those I guess?) to homology. That's the kind of debate I was more having here - is that stuff good to be taught in schools as a scientific alternative to evolution? I don't think so, because there is no actual science to support that. An observation was made - that life is diverse on earth. Then a hypothesis was generated to explain it - that God created Kinds. But, there have been no tests that have born that out in the least... anyway, that is what I was getting at here. I'm hoping giving an actual example might help you and others see what I have meant in previous posts.

As to perception vs reality, that's a very interesting argument and perhaps one best left for another thread, though I fear without some political tinge to it, it'd fall off the front page pretty fast. I understand what you mean about perception of reality... My feeling is that our reality around us is purely based on our perceptions and each perception is effectively it's own reality. However, some realities are "more normal," or matching more with the realities experienced by others of our species around us, than others due to a variety of factors. How exactly to quantify that... hell if I know... and as I said, if there is something "supernatural" I think it would be as you describe there. But that is just my opinion - it's not scientific at all, it's just based on what I agree would be a logical explanation for supernatural stuff. I think that while that stuff is important to explore, that's a more personal journey and also is not really a good subject for a science class, though such debates DO routinely come up in philosophy / theology / religion courses... I was in one in an ethics class actually.